Regorafenib Versus Trifluridine/Tipiracil for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Comparison
It is unclear which drug should be administered first for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102). We retrospectively evaluated 200 patients who had received regorafenib or TAS-102 at 2 institutions to compare these 2 drugs in terms of efficacy and safety. Our results suggest that regorafenib and TAS-102 have similar efficacy but different toxicities, which could guide the agent choice.Background:
Regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) both prolong survival for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. However, it is unclear which drug should be administered first.Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively evaluated the data from patients who had received regorafenib or TAS-102 at 2 institutions from May 2013 to March 2015. The inclusion criteria were disease refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies (if KRAS exon 2 wild-type), and no previous treatment with regorafenib or TAS-102.Results:
A total of 146 and 54 patients received regorafenib and TAS-102, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups, except for a history of irinotecan and anti-EGFR therapy and high alkaline phosphatase levels. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.1 months and 6.7 months, respectively, with regorafenib and 2.1 months and 6.5 months, respectively, with TAS-102 (progression-free survival hazard ratio 1.20, P = .27; overall survival hazard ratio, 1.01, P = .97). The analysis of overall survival for patients after the approval of TAS-102 in Japan was similar to the overall survival for the entire population. The frequency of hand–foot syndrome and increased aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and bilirubin levels was higher and the frequency of neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, nausea, and febrile neutropenia was lower with regorafenib than with TAS-102. No remarkable differences were found in the efficacy and safety of TAS-102 between patients with and without previous regorafenib and vice versa.Conclusion:
Regorafenib and TAS-102 had similar efficacy but resulted in different toxicities, which could guide the agent choice.